Influence of nest‐site and individual quality on breeding performance in Merlins <i>Falco columbarius</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of nest‐site quality and bird quality on breeding performance in male and female Merlins Falco columbarius from a long‐term study in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. In addition, we tested whether nest‐site quality was associated with survival, as well as lifetime reproductive success (LRS). For females, nest‐site quality had little influence on any of the measures of breeding performance or survival. Even so, when females switched nest‐sites, they tended to move to better ones. Hatch date was repeatable for the same females occupying different nest‐sites but not for the same sites occupied by different females. Among males, birds surviving past each age category tended to occupy nest‐sites of higher quality, and LRS was positively correlated with nest‐site quality. The relationship between nest‐site quality and LRS was heavily influenced by the poorest nest‐sites. When males switched nest‐sites, they too tended to move to ones of higher quality. In addition, chick hatch date was repeatable neither for the same males occupying different sites nor for the same sites occupied by different males. As with most other raptors, male Merlins provide most of the food for the pair and their young during the breeding season, and differences in nest‐site quality may have affected the effort needed by males to secure food. Female Merlins, however, appear still to have considerable control over the timing of breeding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".